Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 2, 2013 10:30pm-11:01pm PDT

10:30 pm
there's politics on both sides of this issue, so to ascribe one side being more political than the other just isn't right. >> if you let me finish, that was my very point, i want you to be the policy makers, to make the good decisions, you heard multiple people who came up here who lined about staff not doing their jobs complimenting them today, i think that's a major accomplishment, if you have concerns about that, that's okay, we're still not finished building it, let's address those concerns over the next six month,, aprover the rate today, and then come back to you and say are you happy with this or not rkts you can individually write let teaser the supervisors and let them know what your concerns are and they can come back and say some of the issues, [inaudible] deal with this issue while you're building out the program over
10:31 pm
the next 6 months. >> mr. president? >> yes, commissioner? >> i would just like to point this out, if you look at the resolution that is in our packet, it clearly states many other things besides rates, we are considering more things because the way this resolution is written, it brings up every topic, everything we may disagree with or want further discussion about, so with that in consideration, i'll pass it along. >> point well taken. any other public comment? i just want to say thank you, we've mad a very robust dialog and conversations and communications and i want to thank each and every one of the witnesses who took the time to be here and to exercise your first amendment right to bring your grievance before a governmental body. i'd like to ask if any of the commissioners have anything they would like to add? vice-president courtney? >> thank you, president torres, i want to echo president
10:32 pm
torres' comments, i've learned a lot about the advocates, i've certainly learned lot about a lot of the individuals, i have the utmost respect for supervisor avalos and some of the great work he done specifically in the labor community, my brother and my friend eric brooks is an outstanding advocates and i've gotten to know a lot of the advocates very well, there are a lot of things that have been discussed but i do want to state clearly for the record because people at home need to know certain things, i happen to be a member of the san francisco labor council, the san francisco building construction trades council and i'm also a delegate for the alliance of jobs and sustainable growth. each of those bodies have weighed in, in one way or another in this conversation. the san francisco building construction phase council has clearly said they would be willing to work with shell energy as a provider with the
10:33 pm
project labor agreement, the san francisco labor council has not opposed shell in and of itself in having since have presented some specific principles they would like to see followed, and i know staff has done a good job in engaging those conversation and is the alliance and sustainable growth weighed in late this week about the environmental concerns about the deliverables, i'm going to talk about shop the shell shock campaign, it was initiated by ibw1245, i know of only one other labor organization in town that has taken a position in opposition to doing business with shell. for labor local 261, we have taken a position in support of cc a, that hasn't changed but i think it's an important distinction to make because i did attend the hearing at the environment commission the other night, it was about three hours and i think one of the reasons why it was porntd to note what vice-president anglo
10:34 pm
king had to say today is because that was the fourth vote. we could be having a completely different conversation if the environment commission ak hull took a position and said we don't support rate setting either because these object stirs and goals have yet to be met and i think what they're referring to is they're referring to the draft of the outline of the plan, and so community advocates and correct me, i might add, have said, this has to be about the community and what's in it for them, it can't be one sided, it was always rep senate, that there would be opportunities for communities in needs, specifically the southeast sector and that's why we began to frame this sector as the green new deal and that's relevant because new deals deal specifically with jobs, where we have the public authority housing projects, solar installation, opportunities for those people, i think it's a problem if we continue to have this discussion and say just set rate and is we'll worry about all the details late e we have a tendency to do that to
10:35 pm
people and they're tired of it, they're sick of it. they want to talk about their new deal and i want to talk about their green new deal, i want to talk about solar and i want to be in a position to engage the puc and engage the city and engage these new energy product and is meet our environmental goals and objective, for those reasons, among other, the shell shock campaign, it didn't have anything to do with where the labor union is coming from, it was their opportunity to voice their member's concerns, but i won't be ready to set rates today. >> any other commissioner wish to make a comment? commissioner moran? >> thank you. this has been a long time coming and actually, between the time that i stopped being internal manager and came back to the commission, the city had opted a policy that we should
10:36 pm
pursue cc a and that wasn't my policy, it wasn't the commission's poll sill, it was the city's policy and we have really been the designated implementing agency to see what had to happen to make that dream come true. as i took na on when i came back , i was basically agnostic on the merits of cc a and i set out two basic criteria for my support, one would be that we use program assumptions that were realistic and not just on our fondest hope but on something we thought we could asylums sdain -- sustain, and those risks be identified, those be disclosed and either they be mitigated or funded, depending on what was possible, in the course of the past several years, i think we've
10:37 pm
done that. the assumptions that we're using today are realistic, the risks have been mitigated, the board has funded those that couldn't be mitigated and in the course of doing that, as is true so much in life, it's true when i wipe the fog off the mirror in the morning, you know, before reality sets in, i look a lot better, and then i wipe it off and reality strike, i have to ask whether that's good enough -- >> if you had a fan in your bathroom -- >> i have a fan in my house but not in my bathroom. so, we have done that i think and one of the products of it is i think the program loses some of its luster with we do that, some of the things that we thought or hoped we could do appears aren't in a feasible set and that's just not a choice. so, i think the question that we all have to wrestle with at
10:38 pm
this point is whether or not what we have is good enough, it's not what we started out with but is it good enough, and my answer to that is yes, that the program has met my two criteria in terms of being realistic and also dealing with risk and it has also maintained the possibility of some benefits which i think are significant, one of those is local build-out and i suggest without revenues or customers, you don't have local build-out, and the other is the possibility of finding customers for excess [inaudible] generation, and i think that's very important, so both of those are policy, we haven't worked out the details on yet, but i think the program as presented maintains those possibilities and i think for those reasons, i will be prepared to support the rate.
10:39 pm
>> any other commissioner want to make any other comments? >> i do. >> commissioner caen? >> i too would like to thank everyone for your input. i've been with this program for nine years since its inception in 04 and i always had as you well know problems with the financial side of it. i'm very uncomfortable with this opt-out situation. i have always questioned the survey, it shows 17% would definitely stay in the program and survey also showed that 70% would definitely opt-out of the program and then you have all that in between that i think it was -- i have it right here, 28 probably would stay in, so we're working on the assumption there would be 45% that would stay in. now, if they don't and if people opt out, we have the
10:40 pm
responsibility of the reserve of 19.5 million dollars. i think this is a new business that we're adding to our utility, and you have to remember our mission statement which says water first, and i don't know if it's really wise to go into this, and the other reason being is that there are other forms in the works right now, there is the senate bill for additional green power, 43, thank you, i was looking for the number, and also we have pge -- pg&e that is going to start their program, so my feeling is something different i wanted to suggest. i learned that with 19.5 million dollars, we could set
10:41 pm
up a ppa similar to the solar we have on sunset, we can set up a megawatt, taking those monies and putting it into build-out instead of going into this power program, so at this time, until it is reworked, my feeling is i cannot vote today on this. >> thank you very much, commissioner. i wanted to thank the staff of the puc and also i want to thank the staff of the board of supervisors and lafco for all of your hard work and of course to the advocates who are here and labor who are here as well. i think it's very important that we're grateful for all the participation that you've provide and had the input you provided. but i said before that this program has to be a clean
10:42 pm
energy goals articulated listed, i've been studying the program to understand the pros and the cons and i want to reiterate that i do my own homework and i make up my own mind and i think 20 year ins the legislature ought to indicate to you how i made up my mind and i will put my environmental record on the legislature before and after, thirdly, i think it's important for us to understand that there are still concerns that i have after looking at this very carefully. number one, i do not feel that the labor issues have been fully addressed, that's number one for me, number 2, the table currently on the table as some people argued are fundamentally different from what was proposed and that is also true. thirdly, the not to exceed rate has come down which is excellent in large part due to the inference of commissioner vietor and we thank her for that, at the same time when we
10:43 pm
look at the program itself, we're not offering a greener program that we could, and if you want to define what rec rec are, this is not what san francisco residents agreed to, i've said it often and often enough that i take this responsibility seriously and i want to make sure that the rate payers are protected here and right now, i don't feel comfortable that this proposal does that. commissioner caen referenced sp43 by senator will k of santa rosa, that bill is before the assembly appropriations commission tomorrow, i checked with the member of that committee, it will pass tomorrow, what that bill does is essentially to allow electricity customers so serve their energy needs with a greater proportion of renewable energy by creating an option to receive a portion of their electrical usage from participating independent renewable facilities and the customer will receive a credit
10:44 pm
on their bill fwr the electricity received from a renewable facility. that bill's going to pass and i can assure you that governor brown will sign it so i want to reiterate the remarks made by commissioner caen that she is right, there are alternatives out there that we need to be looking at and i want to soeshts myself with her comments regarding the 9.5 million that we were talking about. these kinds of state policies can certainly help the total picture in my opinion, but the whole purpose was to create a choice i believe, and i don't believe that's really the case, and so i think that at the end of the day, i cannot approve these rates and as commissioner caen, i want to associate myself with her comments on this matter, this is not just about rates today, let's be realistic, it's not, if we were to approve these rates today, we are approving the program because if we approve these rates, that would essentially authorize the general manager to sign a contract with shell and move forward, so it's not just about the rates, it's
10:45 pm
about the whole program and that's why we've raised many of these concerns. commissioner vietor, do you have anything else to add? alright. the motion is before us. would you restate the motion, please. or does counsel want to restate it? >> i'm hoping she has -- >> or does ms. vietor want to restate it? >> sure i will restate. today is a historic moment -- >> not the entire speech. >> of the public ewe tult commission, it shows dedication to a decent greenhouse gas emission and is become a leader in combating climate change. i, therefore, -- i understand
10:46 pm
the current program proposal is not final, today's vote is simply a not to exceed rate vote, can i get confirmation from the deputy city attorney on that, that's the resolved in the rez lawing as i read it, i know there's other language but that's what we're voting on? >> that's correct, that's the resolve. >> i know we cannot determine the program details until we set the rate, so it is with a great sense of urgency, responsibility and on noer that i make the motion to approve the not to exceed rates at 11.5 cents without further delay. >> alright, the motion was seconded by commissioner moran, is that still the case? >> yes. inger >> all those in favor, signify by saying aye? . >> aye. all those opposed? >> nee. >> the motion fails. we're are going to go to closed session, we need a motion to do so. so moved and seconded by
10:47 pm
commissioner moran to move to closed session. are there any public comments on matters to be discussed in closed session? >> are there matters -- >> closed session item number 14, conference with legal counsel, existing claim with the proposed settlement agreement, item 15, conference with legal counsel, proposed settlement agreement, item 16 >> alright, we're back in order, is there a motion? whether to disclose the discussion? >> motion not to disclose. >> moved. >> second. >> all those in favor, say aye. >> aye. >> other new business? >> the one that we wanted to put on the record, the
10:48 pm
settlement, 14 and 15 were approved. >> alright. thank you for making that statement. any other new business? alright. this meeting is adjourned. thank you all very much. (meeting is adjourned).
10:49 pm
10:50 pm
10:51 pm
10:52 pm
10:53 pm
10:54 pm
10:55 pm
10:56 pm
10:57 pm
10:58 pm
link electronics, inc. model number: pdr-885 software version: 2.0a
10:59 pm
11:00 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on